Disposed

M.Umapathy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Jun 2018CRL RC/481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's seized property could not be returned immediately due to lack of strong allegations against him regarding ill-gotten gains. However, to prevent indefinite delay, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to complete the trial within one year; petitioner allowed to approach Court again for return of property if delay attributable to non-petitioner causes.

M.Umapathy Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 04.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.481 of 2018

M.Umapathy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2903 of 2017 in Crime No.RC MA1 2013 A 0025 of CBI/ACB Chennai dated 31.01.2018 to return the petitioner property confiscated by the respondent police without imposing any condition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthick Srinath for M/s. K.M.Vijayan Associates

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. K. Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal order of the Trial Court. The petition has been filed by the accused for return of property kept in the locker No.81 and to permit the petitioner to operate the locker. The Trial Court after considering the petition and objection raised by the CBI, has dismissed the petition.

¶14

2 According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein is an employee of Indian Overseas Bank and office bearers of Indian Overseas Bank Employees Association has entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank and abused the official position of Indian Overseas Bank as public servants and with influence of the higher officials of Indian Overseas Bank in the recruitment of persons with lessor competency and lessor education. The scheme of conspiracy runs across the country and after sustainable investigation, the final report has been filed recently. The

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

properties found in the locker of the petitioner are the proceeds of time. Therefore, strong objection has been raised by the prosecution to return the property.

¶17

3 However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the locker has been seized in the year 2013 and for the past five years the petitioner is unable to make use of his property and the allegations that the properties were acquired ill gotten are false.

¶18

4 Considering the rival contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to return the property while there is no strong allegations against the petitioner that in the properties found in the locker were ill-gotten. However, it cannot be kept for the years together. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of one year since voluminous documents are involved in this case. If the Trial Court is not able to complete the trial within the period of one year and the reasons for the delay is not attributable to the petitioner/accused, then it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court at that juncture for seeking return of properties. 5 With these observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registra rpl To 1. The XI Additional City Civil Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Copy to

¶21

The Section officer Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 104.

¶22

+1 CC to Mr.K.M. Vijayan Associates sr 34567.

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.481 of 2018

¶24

SP(18/06/2018)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Umapathy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Umapathy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periyammal Vs Angaiya Pandithar

A.v.Dhanapalan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Krishna Sai, Vs The Union of India

V.Baskaran, Aged 52 Years Vs the State Rep. by

M.Thiagarajan, Aged 65 Years, Vs the Joint Director of CBI

Kasinathan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of